On the Democrat Side:
People love Obama, but Clinton knows how to play the game. Clinton won the night on points, but lost it on passion. When she is the nominee, and right now she will be the nominee, how she handles the disappointed Obama voters will be everything.
Obama’s folks venerate him, but are learning to loath Senator Clinton. If he is not on the ticket, it means trouble in motivating his voters.
Finally, perhaps it is just me, but Obama’s rhetoric is not wearing well. It is the same every night and my children are beginning to anticipate it and shout “change” with him in a mocking way. They once looked forward to hearing him, but now we are all starting to tire of his bloviating.
Will this happen with everyone who is not already of the Obama?
On Turn Out and Money:
Reminder:
Turnout in a Democrat Party desperate to get rid of Bush does not mean everything.
Republicans are less eager, because they are still on the ropes from defending an unpopular President.
The Republicans in 2000 were highly motivated to get rid of the Clintons and Gore. They had money, passion, and their consensus candidate, George W. Bush.
2000 was still one of the closest elections in American history.
If Clinton is the nominee for the Democrats, the same will happen.
On the Republican Side:
John McCain:
McCain did not end the race, but he had a solid set of wins that moved him roughly half way to the nomination. The weakness of his position is that he won by carrying many states Republican cannot win. However, the band wagon effect will only increase as elected officials come home to John McCain.
John McCain will not make the mistake of confusing pundits with voters. Look for him to Sister Souljah an extreme one (Coulter?) looking toward the general election . . . and then keep pressing his pro-family, pro-defense, conservative message to conservative voters.
Memo to Senator McCain: the same people who will tell you to “kiss off” Huckabee did all they could to defeat you. Where are their votes? Why listen to people who show no ability to appeal to the base?
Unless there is a brokered convention, McCain will win the nomination.
Mitt Romney:
Unless California revives him over night, Romney took a bad hit. McCain is closer to the nomination. I think Romney’s only hope is either miraculous intervention from the crew of the Galactica, landing on Earth right before the Virginia primary, or a brokered convention. The sad truth is that the first is nearly as likely as the second.
Romney and Huckabee would need to keep bleeding away delegates to keep McCain from a majority.
Romney and Huckabee together might electorally equal a Ronald Reagan in 1976 who was able to sap Ford in a series of contests. Reagan almost gained the nomination.
The problem for Romney is that Huckabee seems to loath him politically and prefers McCain.
Romney is a great Republican and if he goes forward, I will go forward with him.
Mike Huckabee:
Please note: most Evangelicals did not vote for Mike Huckabee.
The immediate rush to label anti-Mitt votes in the South”bigoted” or due to Romney’s Mormonism without compelling evidence is grossly offensive.
(Mark Steyn did this on NRO tonight amongst others.)
Before lightly labeling a huge chunk of the party bigoted, isn’t it wise or at least charitable to consider other possibilities?
It is easy to imagine non-religious reasons for the Huck resurgence.
Mitt is from Massachusetts and Yankee pols have a, well, let’s call it mixed history in the South.
Second, Huckabee is a regional politician, the last Southron in the race in either party, and that is a strong position.
Third, it is easy to find new media and other leaders strongly opposed to Mitt for non-religious reasons. Joe Carter is a good example of the Evangelicals I know who oppose Mitt.
I like Romney, but the accusation of bigotry against Huck voters without evidence is damaging to the Party and helps Huckabee.
Huckabee’s big wins took him out of the Pat Robertson category. He is a major player in the party.
Forget marginalizing him by sending him off to some Evangelical organization. He is a former governor, not just a preacher, and he wants to be president. If he is smart, he will spend the next four years (see Nixon) writing serious books and raising his conservative credentials.
He might be a good senator . . . which this year appears to be a good platform for running!
Huckabee won a big state, Georgia. It is stunning how, with no money or support from big name conservatives, Huck took states he had to take and came close to winning other states.
He could do well in a few more states like Texas, but he cannot win the nomination.
On Conservatives and Their Leaders:
The worst news of the cycle continues. Conservative voices in the major media continue to be ineffective at moving voters to support candidates. There are a few, like Hugh Hewitt, who understand the Evangelical voters and their language, but too few to tip the scales.
Hewitt knew how to make an effective case, but much of the rest of the conservative leadership argued against Huck in ways that made me cringe, they were so counterproductive.
The tone was often condescending or did not understand Southern or Evangelical sensibilities.
As a West Virginian by heritage, the tin ear of many of these conservative leaders to Appalachia or to Evangelicals often amazes me.
There are millions of Republican voters in the South and millions more who are traditional Protestants in the South and other parts of the country.
Why are they so seldom understood? Why are their bright young adults so rare in up-and-coming roles where they can be mentored?
Instead of hectoring these voters, often in a condescending tone, it is time to invite them to come along side. Before this election, I read “non-political” blogs (many by home school moms) about the race instead of political blogs. Too many political blogs missed the power of such networks, because they are not fixated on politics until right before the election.
The huffing about McCain and Huckabee on the right was, once again, impotent, because it did not know how to undermine them with their base voters. Marginalizing Huckabee only made his voters, who feel marginal already, want to vote for him. \
One of Rush’s home states, Missouri, gave over sixty percent of its vote to candidates Rush has blasted. People are listening, but are not agreeing. Young Republicans are doing neither listening nor agreeing.
If you look at young voters, the results are even worse for the present conservative leadership.
My favorite out of touch moment tonight came when one of the two Fox “youth vote” commentators mentioned Ron Paul as the only candidate driving young voters on the Republican side.
Check out Huck’s youth numbers in your own polls, Fox. Who is getting the under 44 vote?
Here is the deal: to major media on the right, the millions of Evangelical and religious youth are simply invisible.
Huck had no money. Huck won quite a few states. With a bit of money, is there any doubt he would have won at least a few more?
McCain was blasted for weeks by some on the right. A few, such as Ann Coulter, have come unhinged in their hatred of McCain . . . going as far as to say they would rather vote for Clinton than McCain.
I do not rejoice in this, but denial is worse than acknowledging the truth: those of us who are Reagan Republicans (and voted for Romney) are not communicating well to young, conservative voters.
What is needed is an educational program that speaks to the entire base, and does not just guess what “those people” think. It is too late in this cycle, but is essential for conservatives in the future. Sites like Townhall are a good start, but much more is needed.